3 Guidelines for defining an intervention

3.1 Intervention type

The MAPS tool cost and effectiveness module allows users to estimate the cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of large-scale food fortification (LSFF), biofortification (via crop breeding), and agronomic biofortification interventions.

3.1.1 Food fortification

Food fortification is the addition of vitamins and/or minerals to foods during processing to increase their nutrient content (Olson, Gavin-Smith, Ferraboschi et al., 2021). Large-scale food fortification (LSFF) is food fortification that occurs during processing at formal, centralized industries (USAID Advancing Nutrition, 2023b). In the MAPS cost and effectiveness module, LSFF food vehicle choices currently include wheat flour, maize flour, refined oil, rice, salt, and sugar. Food vehicle choices may be expanded in the future to include bouillon, margarine, and other condiments.

3.1.2 Biofortification

Biofortification via crop breeding is the process of increasing the vitamin or mineral content of a crop by crossing parent lines with high vitamin or mineral levels over several generations to produce plants with enhanced nutrient content and desired agronomic traits (Saltzman, Birol, Bouis et al., 2013). In the MAPS cost and effectiveness module, modeling of the cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of biofortification is limited to crops for which one or more biofortified variety has been released (or is near release) (see this table from HarvestPlus 2020 data on biofortified crops released or in testing by country). Before a biofortified seed variety is released, a 6 to 8 year process of discovery and development research is typically required (Bouis, Hotz, McClafferty et al., 2011). Because costs and effectiveness are modeled over a 10-year time horizon in MAPS (see methods below), biofortified crop varieties that are still in the discovery and developmental research phases would require a longer modeling time horizon to adequately capture costs and/or impacts after the variety is released. Therefore, when estimating the cost of biofortification via crop breeding, research costs incurred prior to in-country final testing and release of the variety are assumed sunk and are not accounted for.

3.1.3 Agronomic biofortification

Agronomic biofortification is the process of increasing the micronutrient content of the edible portion of a crop through applying micronutrient-enriched fertilizers to the soil (granular) and/or sprayed on the plant leaves (foliar) (de Valença, Bake, Brouwer et al., 2017). The effectiveness of agronomic biofortification has been most widely studied for zinc, selenium, and iron, though agronomic biofortification with other nutrients is also possible. In the MAPS cost and effectiveness module, default application rates and grain concentrations/expected uptake are provided for some crop and mineral combinations. These defaults can be modified by tools users, and users can use the MAPS cost and/or effectiveness modelling framework to model crop and mineral combinations without default values (users will be required to specify application rates, expected grain concentrations, etc.).

3.2 Intervention status

The intervention status can be set to either existing intervention program or hypothetical intervention program. This choice will impact some of the default cost and effectiveness modeling assumptions. Based on the descriptions in Table 1 below, the user should choose the intervention status that best reflects the current status of the intervention in the specific country context.

Table 1. Intervention status options

Intervention type	Intervention status	Description	Default modeling assumptions
LSFF	Existing intervention program	Mandatory fortification standards exist for the food vehicle, including the focus micronutrient.	Both costs and effects accrue in all 10 years of the modeling time horizon.
LSFF	Hypothetical intervention program	Either fortification standards for the food vehicle do not exist or the fortification standards do not include the focus micronutrient.	Costs accrue in all 10 years of the modeling time horizon (start-up costs incurred in years 1-2), while effects accrue in years 3-10.
Biofortification (via crop breeding)	Existing intervention program	At least one biofortified variety of the crop has been released in the country.	Both costs and effects accrue in all 10 years of the modeling time horizon.
Biofortification (via crop breeding)	Hypothetical intervention program	No biofortified variety of the crop has been released in the country, but a biofortified variety is expected to be released soon.	Costs accrue in all 10 years of the modeling time horizon (start-up costs incurred in years 1-3), while effects accrue in years 4-10.
Agronomic biofortification	Existing intervention program	Granular and/or foliar biofortification of the crop is being promoted and adopted at a scale larger than pilot programs in the country.	Both costs and effects accrue in all 10 years of the modeling time horizon.
Agronomic biofortification	Hypothetical intervention program	Granular and/or foliar biofortification of the crop is not being promoted and adopted at a scale larger than pilot programs in the country.	Costs accrue in all 10 years of the modeling time horizon (start-up costs incurred in years 1-2), while effects accrue in years 3-10.

3.3 Nature of intervention

The user choice regarding the nature of the intervention will determine how the intervention is modeled over. The choices for the nature of the intervention depend on the type of intervention and whether the intervention is existing or hypothetical (see Table 2).

Selecting the nature of the intervention at this stage will impact several of the default cost and effectiveness model parameter values, but all of these values can be changed by the user within the cost and effectiveness module. As such, users need not worry about selecting the “right” nature of intervention option. For example, if the user wants to model an existing LSFF intervention with both improved compliance and a revision of the current standard, the user can choose either “Improved compliance” of “Revision of existing standard” and then carefully review and edit the default parameter values to ensure the model parameters reflect the intervention characteristics they are hoping to model.

Table 2: Nature of intervention

Intervention type	Intervention status	Nature of intervention	Description	When to use
LSFF	Existing intervention program	Status quo	Modeled fortification standards and compliance with standards held constant over the 10-year time horizon.	Relevant when you want to model the cost and/or effectiveness of an existing program operating at current levels of compliance.
		Improved compliance	Investment made during years 1-2 enhanced monitoring and evaluation. Modeled industry compliance levels scaled up over 10-year time horizon.	Relevant when you want to model the cost and/or effectiveness of an existing program if compliance with the standard improves to a specified level or a relatively newly established program is scaling up.
		Revision of existing standard	Investment made during years 1-2 to plan for and revise the national standard. Modeling in years 1-2 reflects the current standard, while years 3-10 reflect the revised standard.	Relevant when you want to model the cost and or effectiveness of modifying an existing national standard, such as a change to the fortification level, a change to the required micronutrient compound, or the addition of a new micronutrient to the standard.
	Hypothetical intervention program	New food vehicle	Investments made during years 1-2 to plan for, implement, and launch the fortification of a new food vehicle.	Relevant when you want to model the cost and/or effectiveness of introducing national standards for the fortification of a new food vehicle at assumed/potential levels of compliance.
Biofortification (via crop breeding)	Existing intervention program	Status quo	Modeled farmer adoption rates held constant over 10-year time horizon.	Relevant when you want to model the cost and/or effectiveness of an existing program operating at current farmer adoption rates.
	Existing intervention program	Scale up	Investments made during years 1-3 to promote farmer adopt of the biofortified crop. Modeled farmer adoption rates scaled up over 10-year time horizon.	Relevant when you want to model the cost and/or effectiveness of an existing program if farmer adoption rates increase.
	Hypothetical intervention program	New biofortified crop	Investments made during years 1-3 to plan for and launch the release and promotion of the biofortified crop variety.	Relevant when a biofortified crop variety is nearly ready for release and you want to model the cost and/or effectiveness of the new biofortified crop variety at assumed/potential farmer adoption rates.
Agronomic biofortification	Existing intervention program	Status quo	Modeled farmer adoption rates held constant over 10-year time horizon.	Relevant when you want to model the cost and/or effectiveness of an existing program operating at current farmer adoption rates.
	Existing intervention program	Scale up	Investments made during years 1-2 to promote farmer adoption of agronomic biofortification. Modeled farmer adoption rates scaled up over 10-year time horizon.	Relevant when you want to model the cost and/or effectiveness of an existing program if farmer adoption rates increase.
	Hypothetical intervention program	New biofortified crop	Investments made during years 1-2 to plan for and promote agronomic biofortification.	Relevant when you want to model the cost and/or effectiveness of a new agronomic biofortification program at assumed/potential farmer adoption rates.